which is more cinematic: XL1s PAL (with Nikon lens) or DVX100a
 

Hello, I was wondering which camera would have more of a cinematic feel: Canon XL1SE (PAL) with a Nikon lens (via mechanical mount) or a DVX100A. Here are the 2 setups I have questions about:

Canon XL1SE with Nikon Lens
The PAL XL1s shoots at 25fps which is very close to 24fps. I was wondering if this footage has a similar look as a 24p camera or film. And to achieve a shallower depth of field, use a Nikon lens via the Nikon mechanical mount. Now I know there is a 7.2x magnification factor, but I read an article about the PappasSystem and already have a .25x fisheye wide angle adapter, and if I put that on, it would make the lenses back within useable range (say a 24mm lens turns into a 173mm equivalent lens, and then with the .25x adapter its back to a 43mm equivalent lens) Also, I was wondering how this setup would compare with using a Nikon lens on the P+S Tecnik 35 Mini adapter. Or is the spining glass necessary to achieve the "film look" (and shallower depth of field and contrast)?

Panasonic DVX100a
This is a new camera and has a 410,000 pixel count and has a nice gamma system which resembles film (but that could be done in post can�ft it?). It also shoots at 24p, and I've heard it looks great! But the lens is not changeable. How shallow of a DOF can be achieved with this lens? (comparable to the above setup on the XL1S?)

--So I was wondering which setup would pull off a more cinematic look (24fps feel and a shallow DOF) Any help or advice would be great!!

How about an HD camera?

PAL 25i and Panasonic's 24P are the differences between interlaced video and progressive scan video. Theres too much to write to explain exactly what the differences are here but I think you'll come to the same conclusion as I did. Progressive scan feels more "film-like"

Depth of Field doesnt magically come out of a lens. Just because you have a 35mm lens in front of a video camera doesnt mean your going to get 35mm DOF. The aperature aside, theres a relationship between the focal length of a given lens and the size of the target area it projects its image on. No amount of screw on adapter lenses are going to change this relationship. 35mm DOF is only possible with a 35mm target area. For DV the answer is the Mini35.

The purpose of rotating the ground glass is because you DONT WANT TO SEE THE GRAIN in the ground glass so the answer to your question is no. The film look from the mini35 is due to the DOF.

If you're asking which is the better camera, I would say that the DVX100A is. It's resolution is also sharper. Not that the XL1s isn't a good cam, it's a great cam, which has been around and proven itself for a long time. As far as getting a shallow depth of field, a 1/2 inch'd CCD cam would be better.

i worked with both cameras, canon and panasonic.

canon has his advanteges, but the filmic style is not as good as in panasonic progressive mode.

in my opinion dvx is better for progressive scan. (i worked in f5 mode*) but i worked with pal version of dvx. which is 25p. looks really good, but has problems with overexposed parts of the pictures. and sometimes you must very preciselly adjust the colors. flip monitor is not good for that. despite it looks really nice, the color reproduction on that flip monitor is not proper. do not adjust anyhing looking on it. use normal monitor you can trust. treat flip monitor as reference only.

filip


==============
* dial button on the back side of the camera where you can choose your modes - positions of that button from f1 to f4 are for interlace modes, f5 and f6 are progressive.

Thanks for the replies. But an HD Camera is out of the question, because the XL1S and the DVX100a are about the same price and are in my price range (and an HD camera isn't) I'm trying to compare those 2. And also because I own some Nikon equipment already and heard about this setup I was wondering how it would work. I'm not talking about picture resolution or pixel resolution due to the CCD chip, I'm just talking about the overall feel and how it matches to film or 24p (I've done 16mm shorts in the past, but now want to move over to DV simply because of cost).

About the XL1s PAL, what if it was shot in frame mode (which would be like 25p) would it have a similar feel as the 24p (resolution aside).

And about the DOF, I was wondering which camera would give a shallower DOF and nicer results from the lens. Would using a 35mm Nikon lens on an XL1s (with a wide adapter) achieve anything positive? Or would the DVX100a give just as good an image (lens-wise) with a shallower DOF? As I understand the concept of using a 35mm lens on a DV camera is: the image produced by the lens is bigger than the CCD chip, so actually only the image at the center of the lens is being captured, and the rest of the image produced by the lens is projected onto nothing (in so doing being lost) resulting in the appearance of a 7.2x magnification. But wouldn't using a fish eye or wide angle adapter squeeze more of the picture back into the frame (just as it does when you attach it to a normal SRL lens and take a photo)? I'm still learning about lenses and the technical aspects. But I've used the adapter in my photography on a 110mm lens(say almost the same length a 20mm lens would be equivalent to with the 7.2x factor if on a XL1s) with my SRL and it makes the framing of the lens equivalent to what a 30mm lens would capture (and it still had a shallow DOF). Would this look different if I tried this on the XL1s? (not the same DOF as I see through my SLR)

Thanks for your help guys!

<<<-- Originally posted by Darryl Knickrehm :

About the XL1s PAL, what if it was shot in frame mode (which would be like 25p) would it have a similar feel as the 24p (resolution aside).
>>>--

Yes, frame mode at 25p would deliver the same filmlike feel as 25P. However, it will be much lower resolution: frame mode delivers around 320 lines of rez max, whereas DVX100 progressive will deliver 480 lines of rez (both numbers for NTSC versions). So the feel will be the same, but the DVX footage can be much sharper.

<<<--
And about the DOF, I was wondering which camera would give a shallower DOF and nicer results from the lens.
-->>>

Two different questions, two different answers. Which can deliver the shallower DOF? The Canon, absolutely. With a maximum telephoto of 88mm, the Canon can get much shallower than the DVX's maximum 45mm.

Which delivers "nicer results"? The Panasonic, hands down. Sharper, clearer, easier to focus, better color response, higher resolution, everything about it is quite advanced over the Canon. The Canon uses Panasonic CCD's from 1997... Panasonic has had five years to improve on them. The Leica lens on the Panasonic is quite superior to the Canon's. The Canon can deliver a much shallower DOF, but that's really about the only advantage it retains.

<<<-- Would using a 35mm Nikon lens on an XL1s (with a wide adapter) achieve anything positive?
-->>>
No. By the time you use that wide-angle adapter, you bring the effective focal length (and the DOF) right back where you started. The PappasSystem had nothing to do with DOF, it was an attempt to get a manually-controllable lens mounted to the camera. Now that you can do that with Canon's own manual lenses, there's no reason to fiddle with the PappasSystem.

If you crave the shallow-DOF look, and you already have a set of Nikon lenses, look into the mini35 adapter, which is available for both cameras. You could rent it for maybe $150 or $200 per day and get a Nikon mount for it so you could use all your existing glass with no additional expense. Or, read the other forums here for ideas on building your own homemade mini35 for under $300 or so.

> The Canon uses Panasonic CCD's from 1997...
> Panasonic has had five years to improve on them.

Don't both cams actually use Sony sensors? At least that is what my Sony rep claims... not that I usually believe all of what they say though...

The XL1S is actually more versatile in terms of being able to change lenses and making better use of the Mini35, however to have a shallow DOF you have to go as tele as possible and this means the balance of the camera is critical for steadier shots, and you will get less shaky images from the Panasonic with it's image stabilization. Besides being known as a hard to handle camera, the Canon loses it's stabilization when you use photo lenses... I would go for the Panasonic. If only it had real 16:9. Now if you can spend more money (big time lenses and/or a Mini35 would put you in that camp anyway) consider the new JVC, reviewed at DV.com, 24p, 16:9, interchangeable lens...

No, both cameras use Panasonic chips. The chips were first introduced in the Panasonic AG-EZ1 back in 1996 to compete against the Sony VX1000, which is also the first camera to offer "frame mode". Canon licensed the chips for the XL-1 in 1997.

As far as the big-bucks JVC/24P/16:9 camera, I'm assuming you mean the new Panasonic SDX900, right? There's no JVC/24P/16:9 camera that I know of...

...and frame mode first appeared on a Panasonic; and progressive scan on a JVC. :-))

Sorry yes I meant the Panasonic. Yes, that's the Panasonic AJ-SDX900 Multiformat Widescreen Camcorder. '50 Mbps DVCPRO50 support, 2/3-inch CCDs, 16:9, and 24p all converge in a reasonably priced pro package.' $25,000 ($47,760 as tested). I think 'as tested' includes a DVCPRO50 deck and who know what else...

By the way, sorry for the off-topic but when somebody says 2/3-inch CCDs, is that vertical, horizontal or diagonal? If it were vertical, that would almost be like a 35mm frame!

It means diagonal, and it's usually quite an optimistic measurement as well.

A 2/3" video frame is not too far different in size from a 16mm film frame.

Barry... am I misreading this?
---------------------
"Yes, frame mode at 25p would deliver the same filmlike feel as 25P. However, it will be much lower resolution: frame mode delivers around 320 lines of rez max, whereas DVX100 progressive will deliver 480 lines of rez (both numbers for NTSC "
--------------------
wouldn't frame mode record non interlaced 720x486? I've been told conflicting things about the 16:9 setting on the xl1 but am under the impression that it is a software stretch that does make use of the entire rez of the frame...
thanks,
Josh

All DV is interlaced, so it gets recorded as interlaced 720x480.

However, in frame mode, as in progressive scan, both fields that get recorded are recorded at the same instant in time. So your motion gets updated 25 times per second, as opposed to 50 times per second in normal interlaced video.

The XL1 has no capability for disabling line-pair summation, so it maxxes out at about 360 lines of vertical resolution no matter what. Then, when you go to "frame mode", there's a further loss of resolution, meaning that while the camera is recording a frame of 720 x 480, the maximum vertical detail that can be distinctly discerned is down around 320 lines.

any way to adjust a capture mode to compensate for this?
((that kind of sucks))

aside from 60i and posting it to a film-look

Rent a super16mm camera. Then it will be "cinematic".

super16? why not 35mm? (endz are cheaper and more plentiful, post is available everywhere and it looks better)

Barry- you're the man...

http://videosystems.com/ar/video_progressive_need_know/

helped me (I'm a big dummy) figure it out...

Hey Barry...
what about frame mode in PAL? same resolution loss?

Gents:

Resolution loss inherent in frame mode is not as disasterous as the specs appear. If one is to put the camera up on a good monitor and switch between modes, the resolution loss is apparent but may even be preferable as a smoother, more "filmic" image. The bottom line is that it comes down to one's response to the image; do you like it or not?

For large screen projection, resolution is certainly a factor. But for monitors and web viewing, it may not be as much of an issue as it appear.

Certainly the use of improved glass will improve the image. Just because the chips are delivering a certain numerical resolution, the higher grade image going onto them, the better the results. The Mini35 does make a substantative difference in image sharpness over the standard Canon lenses. I recently was involved in a set of tests of different cine and still lenses on a Mini35, and we found that the top-end Nikon still zoom was not nearly as sharp as the better cine lenses we looked at (Zeiss and Panavision Primos), but then again considering the price difference it shouldn't be!

I am very interested to do a comparison of the Mini35 setup on an XL1s and a DVX100 to see if the increased resolution of that camera is outweighed by having to go through the built-in lens. If anyone is able to do so, please post images.

My main concern is progressive output from dvd to hd/ed monitors... for the web I'd shoot frame no doubt. I'm more interested in PAL 25p converted to NTSC compared to 30p frame...

have any preference between NTSC/PAL for origination?

Thanks!

<<<-- Originally posted by Charles Papert : Gents:

I am very interested to do a comparison of the Mini35 setup on an XL1s and a DVX100 to see if the increased resolution of that camera is outweighed by having to go through the built-in lens. If anyone is able to do so, please post images. -->>>

I wanted to see that comparison very much. When we got the mini35, we also got a PD150 connection kit and tried to get an XL1 adapter -- but they didn't have one available. So, alas, I was not able to do the direct comparison.

So I haven't seen a test side-by-side.

However, I did do a film-out of DVX100 footage shot with the anamorphic adapter, which is now available on the DVFILM.COM demo reel. And I've seen XL1 footage blown up in the theater, in the form of "28 Days Later", so I can make a little bit of a comparison.

In my most objective opinion, I think it looked drastically better than "28 Days Later" did in the theater. 28DL used premium HD lenses, with no mini35 ground-glass image deterioration, and the DVX used the stock lens + anamorphic adapter, and between the two, I'd say the DVX looked about twice as sharp. I can't argue that the glass on the DVX was better, but the higher-resolution chipset, the true progressive scan, and the avoidance of any interlace->progressive conversion or PAL->24P conversion really made the DVX look a lot better.

On that reel I also had DVX mini35 footage transferred, and it held up very well, at least competitive with, if not quite a bit better than, 28DL. And that's with the DVX suffering the resolution loss inherent in the mini35. So, without empirical direct comparison available to me, but extrapolating from what I've seen, I would expect DVX/mini35 to look substantially sharper than XL1/mini35. From what I've seen, the better chips do provide enough of a difference to make up for the glass in between them and the image.

One meager bone in favor of Canon--"28L" was shot on the XL1, not XL1s...like I said, meager. And I suppose this whole issue will gain new life when the XL2 makes an appearance.

I just find the xl1 just too cumbersome to shoot with after using a dvx100a.

For the price of either of these two cameras, you could rent an Aaton a-minima for the length of your shoot. How much more cinematic do you need?

I still think mini-dv just doesn't cut it. A sony dsr570 would be my cut off if I absolutely knew I was transferring to film.

For dvd projects, the dvx100 is fine.

If you shoot 50i with the PAL Canon XL-1, and convert to 25P using DVFilm Maker (dvfilm.com/maker) instead of shooting frame mode, that will get you about 431 lines as opposed to only 384 for PAL frame mode. The reason for that is because on static areas of the screen, Maker passes the interlaced frame through unchanged and you get the full vertical resolution of interlaced mode, even though the motion is 25P.

Another way to do that is shoot 50i and convert to film-motion NTSC with DVFilm Atlantis (dvfilm.com/atlantis). That will yield very similar motion as shooting NTSC DVX100 in 24P and about the same resolution.

Michael:

As I'm sure you know, the cost of shooting film has little to do with the camera rental, and a lot to do with the stock/processing/telecine costs which have no counterpart to speak of in the DV world.

And to be honest, I find the A-minima to be a pretty cumbersome animal itself, despite its bantam weight. The fixed eyepiece can be an annoyance, and it is not the easiest to thread (I've experienced a few jams, but I'll allow that practice makes perfect as with any camera). It's a clever camera and is useful for certain applications but I stop short of considering it a primary production camera.

Obviously film is going to provide a more cinematic image than any digital format. However, even the minimal cost of shooting Super 8 will quickly eclipse the cost of renting an HD setup once shooting begins. It's just not a consideration for most readers of this forum.

Charles,

You are right about post production costs. However film telecine transfers are under pricing pressure and I think HD and super16mm are pretty close in price one it's all said and done.


That being said, lets suppose we are shooting only dv. I've shot and seen dvx100a footage, it's nice. It doesn't look like film though. You still have to process it with an add on filter in your NLE to make it "filmish". I think one could shoot with a 16x9 60i camera and de-interlace and process in post and that would be as "cinematic" as you could get.

I have to say, that frame mode on some Canon cams looks much better than the 320 lines or whatever it is. You couldn't dare to blow it up, but if you went straight to dvd and only saw it on a TV, it's got some props.

Agreed that the cost of a film-out brings the margin of cost in--but I didn't realize we were talking about theatrical release.

I would say that the single most contested issue in this forum is "how do you make video look like film?" We've been around and around it, and of course it's all in the eye of the beholder. I've seen some folk's work on the DVX that was posted here that was really convincing in a web delivery (and I wouldn't be surprised if I felt the same watching it on a monitor). We've had a lot of positive feedback on the Seinfeld Amex shorts, which had no post-filtering done to contribute to the film look.

As always, it comes down to good lighting, composition and camera movement to sell the cinematic look, along with a 24-30p frame rate and for the piece de resistance, a Mini35 with good lenses can't hurt. Of all of those, only the frame rate can be achieved by flipping a switch on a stock camera.

Re: 28 Days Later...

I read that the 2nd unit was shooting with a Canon XL1... but I haven't heard what the 1st unit used (maybe cos it's the horrible truth none of us want to hear...)

Some lovely shots at the stately home look very 35mm whereas the scenes in the taxi, abandoned London and the hospital look very Canon XL1. I'm undecided... would love to believe it was all shot on digital, but I'm cynical!

People won't bother getting off their arses to go see a movie that cost $5mill to make - tell them it cost $50,000 or $150mill and they'll be queueing around the block. Odd that, eh?!

28 Days Later cost about $8mill... suggesting the use of the XL1 was a creative decision/marketing ploy rather than a financial choice.

When Variety referred to 28 Days Later as a faux-low-budget film, I think they knocked the nail on the head!

Anyone got Danny Boyle's email address so we can ask him straight up?!

As I understood it from what I read at the time, the use of DV was purely artistic, since it provided an "otherwordly" look.

The XL1 was the camera of choice for most of the film. The scene at the end (where they made the signal out of bedsheets) was shot on 35mm as a contrast.

I think the XL1 worked out great for much of the film, except for the scenes in the church and the exteriors of London at the beginning where the artifacts were distracting.

Hi,

http://www.theasc.com/magazine/july03/sub/index.html
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/

July 2003 in the 'archives' section has a talk with Anthony Dod Mantle regarding the shooting of the film. Interesting read.

Best,

DW.

Pana 900
 

I just saw some footage shot with the Panasonic 900 (the one that goes for $25,000, if I have the model # wrong) and I liked what I saw. Most of it looked like it was shot on film.

Exterior scenes looked just like film, whereas a few interior shots had a somewhat "videoish" look to it, but not "videoish" the way a daytime soap opera looks. But this was raw footage, without and post prod tweaking or film looking software applied. Some shots I thought would have been helped by not having the actors against a mostly blank wall, arranging actors and furniture to give the set more depth, and some diff. lighting to also create illusion of depth.

Some shots looked like a cross between video and film, which I liked and found very interesting. Overall, the footage looked like film, but "sharp looking" film, a look I liked.

Wouldn't it be neat if there was a cam that took things to a new level and offered you the capability to achieve countless other "looks" besides just the senescent "film look"?

?

- don

Don,

The SDX900 does do just that. You can creat an unlimited number of looks with the camera, see the downloadable scene file area of the SDX900's web page. And if you kind of like one but want to chage it, you can do that as well.

The camera allows for DVCPRO50 recording at 4:2:2, 3:1 compression or 4:1:1 at 5: copression for DVCPRO recording. It does 60i, 30P 24P and 24PA, 16:9, 4:3, mix and match. You can go whereever you client needs to go.

Hope that helps,

Jan

Hello Jan,

How are you Jan? Hoping you are well! Yes, as you know, am very aware of the wide array of looks possible with the SDX900. It's one of my favorite cameras. (Love the V-27 even more.) We'll definitely be showing the 900 & 27, among other cams, at our Digital Acquisition seminar during Tech Day at the Woods Hole Film Festival 2004. Should have an even greater turn out than last year.
http://woodsholefilmfestival.com Looking forward to seeing you soon!

Just wanted to remind people that there is so much more besides "just the film look".

- don

"Wouldn't it be neat if there was a cam that took things to a new level and offered you the capability to achieve countless other "looks" besides just the senescent "film look"?"


That sounds great Don, especially if that cam could be purchased for under $5K. Any idea when we might see something like that?
And what sort of 'other looks' are you talking about exactly? Does this camera shoot at different frame rates? Different gamma settings? This is, of course, completely hypothetical.



The SDX900 is really one incredible camera, but a bit too much for me at the moment (pricewise I mean). I would love to see panasonic release a new version of the DVX which was something closer to a 1/3" version of the SDX900. That would be one incredible camera (granted it would still be a bit up there in price, but I'd be willing to search the couch cushions for the extra change). Especially if we were given the ability to shoot at 50mb/s in a small form factor camera. Sure, we would only get 30minutes per tape, but I think most people would welcome the added datarate.

"Just wanted to remind people that there is so much more besides "just the film look"

Is that really all you were hinting at Don?
:)

-Luis

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Berube : Wouldn't it be neat if there was a cam that took things to a new level and offered you the capability to achieve countless other "looks" besides just the senescent "film look"?
- don -->>>

We havent even begun to tap into the 'film look'. This is just the beginning. I think the future will have technology REPLACE film so to dismiss this as already past due is asinine.

<<<-- Originally posted by Don Berube :
Just wanted to remind people that there is so much more besides "just the film look".
- don -->>>

What look is that? I dont know about this look?

Sorry Don, not trying to be difficult. I confess your comments surprise me. Film will be replaced (Its already happening) and it will take many years (10 to 15?) and as far as alternative looks to film I really am stretching here but? Im sorry, the soap opera look maybe? I dont know! You tell me!

Hi John,

No offense taken, of course. Thank you for your confession though!

And thank you for helping me to make my point. I was merely observing that if all we do is continue to strive for the "film look", then that is all we will ever have. Thankfully, there are other people out there who are capable of looking beyond that and striving for more. Thankfully, there are some manufacturers with R&D teams that do not simply strive to provide just "the film look" feature set.

Yes, there are many "filmmakers" who shoot digitally and obsess about wanting a camera that gives them a "film look", so that they can, in their own words, "finally" make their film and tell their story. That's all they want and they want it for as cheap as possible. Then there are others who maintain it is more about creativity, technique and skill than it is about any camera. Some will suggest a person who feels limited by a camera is being complacent. Obviously, there are many varying opinions out there, just as much as there are many varying levels of skill, creativity and expertise. Certainly, whenever you group more than one person into one room, there will inevitably be agreement and disagreement regarding what is most important. None of it is 'assinine' really, it's just natural that some will move forward, some will stand still, some will lay down and perhaps others will have already found the lightswitch and moved on to the next room.

Many shooters who have experience with high end cams like the VariCam 27, Thompson Viper, Cine Alta, etc would even suggest that the "film look" is just scratching the surface of the looks that are possible with cameras that offer such high end image control, lattitude, resolution, color depth, variable frame rates, etc. Many of these people have their own idea of what the exact feature set or recipe is for creating the image which they visualize inside their head.

24P is not the Holy Grail to everyone. Yes, thankfully, it is now available to many people. Some people have a stygma about 60P because it is something they have never seen before. Sometimes people feel most comfortable with what they are most familiar with, or at least with what they think they are familiar with. We are all intrigued by different things. 60P certainly intrigues me. Film is not transparent or flawless. But, many are so used to it. Perhaps some want the film look because they have become used to the anomalies inherent within film being the medium, while others may not actually want to be distracted by the medium itself. Perhaps it would be best if the actual medium was transparent, with no anomalies. You could hand four crayons to a group of people and some will inevitably complain about being offered only four colors, while perhaps others might embrace those four crayons and create something wonderful. In any case, I'm sure we could obsess about this for days on end, in countless posts.

Who knows, eh?

Best regards,

- don

I see your point. Well put.